The gifts of government

Most politicians display an attitude that their constituents are like children in need of constant government, care and supervision from rulers who know what is best for them. It’s like they think they own us and therefore anything they do on our behalf is a gift. You see, the government owns your life and your property. Any privilege they allow us is a gift. If a law permits us some activity it’s a gift. If taxes are reduced and you are allowed to keep more of your property it’s a gift.

Yes, tax cuts and tax reform are gifts. Politicians of all stripes believe that. President Trump thinks that his new tax bill, for example, is an “incredible Christmas gift” for Americans. "They're going to start seeing the results in February. This bill means more take-home pay. It will be an incredible Christmas gift for hard-working Americans. I said I wanted to have it done before Christmas. We got it done," Trump said.

Don’t forget the Democrats either. Not a single one of them voted for President Trump’s wonderful Christmas gift, but they still all think of it the same way: It’s a gift. “Republican tax bill is a Christmas gift for the super-rich,” trumpets the L.A. Times. “Trump’s Tax Plan Is a Pointless Gift to the Wealthy,” exalts Slate. “It’s been called a ‘tax cut for the rich, a Christmas gift for the wealthy,’” and more,” says the N.Y. Times.

How about that? All the politicians admit that your money is a gift to you if they allow you to keep it. It’s just a matter about who “benefits” the most from the government allowing us to keep some of our own property – the “middle class” or the “rich.” Poor folks don’t pay any taxes so they don’t get the “gift.” Their gift is that they don’t pay any taxes.

Actually, the truth of the matter is that the politicians, bureaucrats, agents and employees of the government always get the gift no matter what. The government swamp creatures always get the gifts. Their object is to collect revenue from the people. That revenue is their sustenance. The people collectively is their golden goose.

And they realize that if they squeeze their golden goose too much by overtaxing it, the law of diminishing returns acts to reduce their precious revenue. The goose will seek to avoid taxes by producing less. So they’ve learned that cutting taxes, even though it seems counter intuitive, can increase, even maximize their revenue.

The idea that tax cuts are a gift to us is bullshit. The government that treats us like children is full of bullshit. It feeds it to us as children and continues feeding it to us when we’re adults too. President Trump and first lady Melania, for example, became Santa Claus’ helpers when they placed phone calls to children on Christmas Eve. They asked kids what they wanted for Christmas and updated them on Saint Nick’s status, thanks to NORAD’s Santa Tracker, which pinpoints his position as he races around the globe.

Yes, our President and his First Lady were lying to children and feeding them bullshit about Santa on Christmas Eve. I think it’s a form of child abuse. When I learned that Santa Claus was bullshit at the tender age of seven years, that’s when I stopped believing in God too. That’s when I became suspicious of all people of authority. Later, on Christmas day the President was calling soldiers on duty in Afghanistan to say that God was watching over them.

It’s all part and parcel with the gifts of government.

Happy New Year!!!

Federal Bureau of Injustice

Did you know that the longest serving Director of the FBI, from 1924 to 1972, a grand total of 48 years, was a crook?

That’s right! U.S. Presidents were afraid to fire this despicable human being during all that time because he used his considerable bureaucratic power to amass secret files on them as well as on hundreds of other prominent individuals for purposes of coercion and blackmail. And now Americans have to show for it a massive tribute to him, in Washington D.C. -- the J. Edgar Hoover Building -- headquarters of the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Injustice.

Fast forward to modern day FBI history and we see that things haven’t changed much. If justice really were the purpose of the Department of Justice and its investigative arm the FBI, we should see Hillary Clinton in handcuffs, dressed in a designer orange jump suit doing a perp walk before her sentencing hearing at the federal courthouse on her way to a suitable federal penitentiary for her multiple serious crimes committed as a public official.

But no – we’re talking about the Federal Bureau of Injustice here and that means that Hillary Clinton has not received justice – at least not yet. James Comey, the recently fired FBI Director knew full well from the facts his agents found that Clinton was guilty as sin of mishandling classified materials on her private computer server while she was Secretary of State, but he deliberately edited those facts to reach a dubious conclusion to let her off the hook.

Comey, for example, knew that it was likely hostile foreign actors had gained access to her private email account containing the classified documents, but changed the facts later to indicate the scenario was merely “possible.” He knew that the facts showed Clinton was “grossly negligent” but changed his conclusion later to “extremely careless” in order to avoid a legal statutory definition of criminality from her conduct.

In short, he deliberately watered down facts showing rightful conclusions pointing to Clinton’s culpability in mishandling classified information.” We now know that FBI Director Comey was determined to exonerate Hillary Clinton long before his “investigation” of her crimes was completed. We also know that high ranking agents of the FBI are diligently working at this very moment to unlawfully undermine, sabotage and ultimately bring down the legitimate presidency Donald J. Trump.

What else can Americans expect from the Federal Bureau of Injustice?

First Amendment trumps civil rights laws

I predict that the Supreme Court of the United States will decide that the First Amendment trumps civil rights laws in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, because our government may not force us to express messages that violate religious convictions.

Having read the oral arguments I think that a SCOTUS majority will hold that a Christian baker enjoys a First Amendment right to refuse the request of a gay couple to create a custom wedding cake that expressly celebrates a gay marriage. He may not be punished for violating state civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals.

I can’t imagine that the Court would uphold a civil rights law that allows an atheist, for example, to force a devout Christian baker to create a cake with a message that says that “Jesus is a myth,” or that “God is imaginary.”  

Make no mistake though, a baker operating a business open to the public may not lawfully discriminate against atheists or gays in violation of public accommodations laws. Such people cannot lawfully be refused service when it comes to buying any cake in the shop, for instance, but they cannot force a baker to express creative ideas which violate his First Amendment rights.

So the baker may be punished if he puts a sign in his window that says “We do not bake cakes for gays,” but may not be punished for refusing to create cakes which expressly celebrate gay weddings.

Likewise, an African American sculptor operating a business open to the public violates public accommodations laws if he refuses to serve folks he doesn’t like, but may not be forced to create a cross which expressly supports a Ku Klux Klan service.

This is a no-brainer in my opinion.

I’ll be surprised if SCOTUS doesn’t decide that the First Amendment trumps civil rights laws.

Shocking verdict! Really?

The rabid media mob, pundits, politicians and most Americans are in a state of angry apoplexy over the “shocking verdict” in the San Francisco Kate Steinle “murder” case where a jury acquitted an “undocumented immigrant.”

Shocking verdict! Really? Well, no, of course not.

The defendant was grossly over charged, and the angry mob was focused upon facts which had nothing whatever to do with his guilt or innocence. This was not a murder or manslaughter case. There was virtually no evidence of violent propensities, intent or motive to kill Kate Steinle.

Yes, the defendant, Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, was a criminal; a bad egg; a homeless undocumented Mexican immigrant; a multi-convicted non-violent felon; an alien in the U.S. illegally; deported previously five times, he shouldn’t have been here but took advantage of San Francisco being a sanctuary city.

Now, I’m just as outraged as everyone else by these facts but they certainly had nothing to do with any issue in the case involving this defendant.

Prosecutors argued that Zarate intentionally shot Steinle as she and her father walked on San Francisco's Pier 14. But his defense attorney showed sufficient evidence of reasonable doubt. It was a freak accident he argued as the bullet ricocheted off the ground and traveled about 80 feet before hitting the woman.

Was it intentional or accidental? That was the issue before the jury. They ultimately sided with the defense. Why? Because of ample reasonable doubt that he had intentionally taken Steinle's life. They did find him guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm because they were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt on that charge.

No reasonable jury would find an accused guilty of murder just because he was an illegal alien. But President Donald Trump, like all the other pissed off pundits, called the verdict "disgraceful." "No wonder the people of our Country are so angry with Illegal Immigration," the President tweeted hours after the verdict… His exoneration is a complete travesty of justice. BUILD THE WALL!”

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter said Steinle "would still be alive if we had a wall," referring to the President's call for the construction of a border wall between the US and Mexico.

Well, yes, it’s definitely a travesty; I’m for a wall and hate sanctuary cities too, but no one can blame this jury verdict for something not relevant to their lawful decision in the case. Obviously, the debate over immigration didn't belong in the case. "Nothing about Mr. Garcia Zarate's ethnicity, nothing about his immigration status, nothing about the fact that he is born in Mexico had any relevance as to what happened on July 1, 2015," the public defender Francisco Ugarte said.

Shocking verdict! Really?

Don’t blame the jury. 

Blame the Authority!